Guidelines for Reviewers

Responsibility of Peer Reviewer

Peer-reviewer is responsible in providing written, unbiased, constructive, and honest feedback to the author after carefully reading and evaluating the article in the field of reviewers’ expertise. Peer reviewers, discuss the strength and weakness and provide critiques to increase the quality of the article, and also evaluate the relevance and authenticity of the article. Reviewers must asked themselves whether the article to be reviewed in accordance with his/her expertise.

Reviewers must notify the editor if: 1) the topics being reviewed is not an appropriate areas of expertise and may suggest an appropriate alternative reviewer; 2) he/she can’t completed the review process within 2 weeks and may suggest an alternative reviewer; and 3) he/she has competing interest that may influence the review process and must disclose all conflicts of interest.

Review Process

When reviewing the article, please consider and make comments about the following:

- Title: is it clearly ilustrating the article?

- Abstract: does it reflect the content of the article?

- Introduction: does it describe the subject matter accurately and clearly state the problem of the article? Introduction also summarize the context of relevant research and briefly explain the findings of the research. Does the literature review is relevant to the issue of the article? Does the hypothesis development is relevant to the literature review and theory? Does the content of the article original and suitable for the journal? Any element of plagiarism should not over 25% of the paper field.

- Method: does it comprehensive and that appropriate analysis has been employed in findings the research result?

- Results and Discussion: does the result thoroughly discussed? Does the author compare the research results with other previous research? Does the author use a proper statistical tools? Does appropriate analysis has been carried out ?

- Conclusions: are the conclusions supported by the fair results and reasonable discussions? Does the author explain how the follow up of the research based on the results? Does it describe the limitations of the research?

 - Tables and Figures: is it suitable with the referred explanation and easy to interpret and understand?

- References: is it relevant to the articles’ topic and up to date?

Complete “The Review” by the due date to the editorial office. Please do not hesitate to contact editorial office with any questions or problems that you may encounter.